The BCCI has debarred Indian players from taking part in the Sri Lankan Premier League as the event is being organised by a "private party" based in Singapore instead of the island nation's Cricket Board.

"We took the decision at an informal meeting of 18-20 members held yesterday that no Indian cricketer will be given permission to take part in the league as it is being organised by a private party based in Singapore. The Board's policy is not to allow players to take part in private party-organised tournaments," BCCI president Shashank Manohar said.

Manohar said unless the Board gives them a No Objection Certificate, Indian players cannot participate in the Lankan Twenty20 league.

"We have to give them permission and we have decided not to give it. We have already informed the Sri Lanka Cricket about it," he elaborated.

The SLPL is to be conducted at the Premadasa Stadium in Colombo from July 19 to August 4 and a dozen Indian cricketers, including Praveen Kumar, Munaf Patel and R Ashwin who were part of the ODI series that ended recently in the West Indies, have shown their interest in taking part in it.

Manohar explained that all rights of the tournament, including signing of players' contracts, are vested with the Singapore-based private entity which he did not name.

The Board had initially decided to give the players the green signal to take part in the tournament as it was thought that the SLC was organising it, but once it found out that a private enterprise in Singapore has been given all the rights, the Board changed its stand.

Manohar said he did not expect the Sri Lanka board to retaliate by refusing permission to the island nation's players from taking part in the BCCI-owned and run Indian Premier League. "I don't think so," he said.

ESPN News: No Indians in SLPL, says BCCI (http://www.espncricinfo.com/srilanka/content/story/519526.html)
The BCCI has denied permission to the 12 Indian cricketers who wanted to participate in the Sri Lanka Premier League. The decision was made after the players had asked the BCCI for No-Objection Certificates to play in the two-week long Twenty20 competition, starting on July 19. The SLPL will be run by a Singapore-based private company, Somerset Entertainment Ventures, which will issue the player contracts, something the Indian board believes could lead to complications for the players should disputes arise.

The decision, the BCCI said, was taken to protect the players from finding themselves in a tricky situation. "In the IPL the players are contracted by the BCCI, but the SLPL is offering contracts with the event management company," a BCCI official, who attended the tours and fixtures committee meeting on Saturday at which the decision was taken, added. "So, if there is any goof-up, Sri Lanka Cricket cannot be held accountable. As a result, the board [BCCI] would not like to take any chances."

"We took the decision at an informal meeting of 18-20 members held yesterday that no Indian cricketer will be given permission to take part in the league as it is being organised by a private party based in Singapore," the BCCI president Shashank Manohar told PTI on Sunday. "The board's policy is not to allow players to take part in private party-organised tournaments."

Praveen Kumar, Munaf Patel, Irfan Pathan, Dinesh Karthik, R Ashwin, Ravindra Jadeja, Manoj Tiwary, Saurabh Tiwary, Umesh Yadav, Vinay Kumar, Manish Pandey and Paul Valthaty, reportedly, are the 12 Indians who had shown interest in playing the SLPL. The BCCI had earlier stated it had no problems with the proposed league and that Indian players are free to take part, as long as there is no conflict with India's international or domestic schedule.

The BCCI official also said the decision to prevent Indian participation in the league had nothing to do with the pressure applied by the SLC and the Sri Lankan Sports ministry in April and May to recall top Sri Lankan players participating in the IPL, ahead of Sri Lanka's England tour.

Reportedly, the SLC top brass were caught unawares by the Indian board's decision and called for an emergency committee meeting to discuss it. No SLC official was available for comment.

The SLPL will be played between July 19 and August 4 at the R Premadasa Stadium in Colombo. Several foreign players including Chris Gayle, Kieron Pollard, Shahid Afridi, Daniel Vettori, Kevin O'Brien and Herschelle Gibbs have already been signed for the tournament.

Banglaguy

June 19, 2011, 05:18 AM

So Indians expect others to go against their own boards to play their T20 league, but they don't let their own players go to other leagues ¬_¬

nakedzero

June 19, 2011, 06:21 AM

I don't think any Indian will go against their board. I think they don't like other nations to organize any attractive T20 tournaments like IPL. Would like to see their reaction for BPL :-) i'm waiting...

Banglaguy

June 19, 2011, 06:25 AM

What about players like Irfan Pathan, Paul Valthaty?

magic boy

June 19, 2011, 07:03 AM

Lets see if other Indian cricketers out of these 12 Indian cricketers can get the clearance to play in SLPL. There is no wrong if BCCI wants its valuable cricketers not to be wasted away when they could play in domestic leagues or international matches for India. Tamim Iqbal had also the chance to play in SLPL, but he turned down and now look where he is going to play, County! that's better choice. If it was BCB's decision whether to let Tamim play in SLPL or County then I think BCB wouldn't wait to approve him to play in county. Because the decision of not permitting Tamim to play in SLPL might sound politically negative to SLPL authority but its for own goodness of Bangladesh Cricket & its valuable cricketer like Tamim. So, I personally see no evil in BCCI's disapproval.

nakedzero

June 19, 2011, 01:26 PM

Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) has rejected the BCCI's claim that the Sri Lanka Premier League (SLPL) is a private-party organised tournament, saying that the SLPL is owned and approved by SLC - and so, automatically, by the ICC - and that Singapore-based Somerset Ventures only owns the commercial rights to the tournament. The BCCI had on Saturday said it would not allow Indian players to participate in the tournament on the grounds that it was a privately-run event but the reality is that there is little difference between the SLPL and the BCCI-run IPL.

"This tournament is approved by SLC," its secretary Nishantha Ranatunga told ESPNcricinfo. "And Somerset are the marketing arm, having won the rights through a tender process. Nobody can say it is owned by Somerset."

Somerset is responsible for the logistics and marketing of the tournament, a role similar to the one IMG plays for the IPL. And unlike in the IPL where the teams are owned by private franchises, it is SLC that owns the seven teams in the tournament and will determine which players are assigned to which teams, thereby giving them a substantial degree of control over the event.

The BCCI had initially stated it had no problems with the proposed league and that Indian players were free to take part, as long as there was no conflict with India's international or domestic schedule. However, on Saturday came the board's announcement denying permission to the 12 Indian cricketers who'd sought No-Objection Certificates to participate in the SLPL on the grounds that it is Somerset who would be handling the contracts for international players, and that could lead to complications for the players should disputes arise.

That sudden volte face has left SLC "surprised and hurt", Ranatunga said, and the board will be meeting on Monday to discuss how to tackle the situation. "We need to explain the matter to the BCCI and whatever the concerns that they have, we need to give them an explanation. It is very important to have them [Indian players] as they add a lot of value and glamour to the tournament."

However, when asked whether he was hopeful a solution could be found, Ranatunga said, "I really don't know. We will have to wait and see."

The SLPL will be played between July 19 and August 4 at the R Premadasa Stadium in Colombo. Several foreign players including Chris Gayle, Kieron Pollard, Shahid Afridi, Daniel Vettori, Kevin O'Brien and Herschelle Gibbs have already been signed for the tournament.

This is Tit for Tat action of Revenge for the Drama created by SLC and SL Govt during IPL. First giving players NOC till 20th May and then suddenly calling them back on 5th May. Now it is the turn for revenge time for BCCI

Without Indian market and players SLPL would be a commercial failure and will not be able to sustain itself. SLC and Somerset know that. In the end even if all other players have been contracted by Somerset to ensure Indians playing SLC will go out of the way and offer contract from their side. In 10 days we will see an agreement and Indians playing in the tournament.

hassan .r

June 20, 2011, 10:20 PM

This is Tit for Tat action of Revenge for the Drama created by SLC and SL Govt during IPL. First giving players NOC till 20th May and then suddenly calling them back on 5th May. Now it is the turn for revenge time for BCCI

Without Indian market and players SLPL would be a commercial failure and will not be able to sustain itself. SLC and Somerset know that. In the end even if all other players have been contracted by Somerset to ensure Indians playing SLC will go out of the way and offer contract from their side. In 10 days we will see an agreement and Indians playing in the tournament.

well no brother SPL will be a success even without indian players ........ look at the t20 tournament in england there is no indian player there but yet it is successful ........ enough of indian dominance in world cricket

jashan83

June 21, 2011, 12:35 AM

well no brother SPL will be a success even without indian players ........ look at the t20 tournament in england there is no indian player there but yet it is successful ........ enough of indian dominance in world cricket

Rather it is opposite dude. The County are loosing money every year. The attendances on T20 are minimal because of high number of matches. There is a huge talk of total revamp of the domestic structure.

And there is a difference between SL and Eng. Eng is a big economy. Besides the 80% money in cricket coming from India Around 9-10% comes from England and around 5-6% from Australia. Hence due to this the tournament is able to sustain itself

The dominance is India is a reality in cricket and is here to stay for atleast one more decade

nakedzero

June 21, 2011, 06:34 AM

The chairman and secretary of Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) will meet with the BCCI on Wednesday in an attempt to convince the Indian board to allow its players to participate in the Sri Lanka Premier League. Sri Lanka's sports minister, Mahindanda Aluthgamage, has asked DS de Silva, the chairman, and Nishantha Ranatunga, the secretary, to travel to India to clear the air between the boards. ESPNcrcinfo has learned that a meeting has been arranged to discuss the BCCI's objections to the Sri Lankan tournament.

"I have instructed the chairman and the secretary to rush to India and convince the Indian board officials to allow their players to play in our tournament," Aluthgamage told the Daily Mirror. "The chairman will be directly arriving from London, where he has been with the Sri Lanka team, and Ranatunga will join him from Sri Lanka."

On Saturday the BCCI decided to reject the request made by 12 Indian cricketers for No-Objection Certificates to participate in the SLPL, on the grounds that it is event management company Somerset who would be handling the contracts for international players and that could lead to complications for the players should disputes arise.

The SLC responded by denying the BCCI's claim that the SLPL is a private-party organised tournament, saying that the event is owned and approved by SLC, and Aluthgamage was confident a solution could be found. "We have good rapport with the Indian board and I am sure the issue will be sorted out amicably," he said. "The first edition of this tournament will go ahead as scheduled [July 19 to August 4, 2011]."

The minister also stated that former IPL chairman Lalit Modi has nothing to do with the SLPL. "I can say with 100 % assertion there is no role of Lalit Modi in SLPL. I am unaware about his trip to this country, if he had made one two months ago."

Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) on Thursday delayed a meeting with Indian officials over the participation of India's players in the island's inaugural Twenty20 competition.

SLC chairman DS de Silva and secretary Nishantha Ranatunga failed to make a scheduled trip to India on Wednesday amid diplomatic moves to defuse the row which was sparked by India's refusal to allow its players to join the event.

"It's a very sensitive issue. Sri Lanka is keen not to upset relations with India. Both countries share warm relations and India's financial clout is key to Sri Lanka cricket future," an official source said asking to remain anonymous.

Fast bowlers Praveen Kumar and Munaf Patel were among 12 Indian players who had sought permission to play in the Sri Lanka Premier League (SLPL) after the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) had earlier cleared the event.

The BCCI's U-turn came amid media reports that the SLPL was being organised by Singapore-based Somerset Entertainment Ventures, which allegedly has links with Lalit Modi, the sacked former boss of the Indian Premier League (IPL).

www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=191321

jashan83

June 23, 2011, 11:59 PM

Without India, minister fears the worst for Lankan Premier League

NEW DELHI: The BCCI's suspicions over Lalit Modi's involvement in the Sri Lankan Premier League (SLPL) and its reluctance to allow its own players to participate could even lead to the cancellation of the entire event, Lankan sports minister Mahidananda Aluthgamage told TOI on Thursday.

Aluthgamage went on to add that the absence of Indian cricketers could cripple the league financially and force it to be conducted only at the local level unless more foreign players from other countries are roped in.

While denying that Lalit Modi was involved in any way with the event, Aluthgamage said, "We completely understand the concerns of BCCI. They are the ones who are against Modi and if they are claiming he is a part of the league, we can't do anything else. After Thursday's conversations with BCCI, Sri Lanka Cricket officials will not travel to India.

"The Indian board told us they couldn't send their players for SLPL because they felt Modi is involved in this event. The BCCI also said that Modi is the third party and is working behind the scenes. Right now we are left with two options.

Either we replace the Indians with more foreign cricketers from England, New Zealand, Australia and Pakistan or else scrap the league completely."

The minister also hinted that the tournament could be played only at the local level.

The BCCI has refused to change its stance on preventing Indian players from taking part in the Sri Lanka Premier League (SLPL) despite the Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) offering bank guarantees to safeguard the Indian players' contracts. The two boards held a telephone conference on Thursday to discuss the issue, but were unable to come to an agreement. SLC is however, expected to go ahead with the tournament as scheduled without the Indian players.

The BCCI had withheld its permission on the grounds that Somerset Entertainment Ventures, the company owning the commercial rights for the event, would be handling the contracts for international players, and that this could lead to complications should disputes arise over payments. In order to assuage the Indian board, SLC were willing to back the Indian players' contracts so that their financial interests were protected, but that was not enough to satisfy the BCCI.

The BCCI's decision means the tournament will not have a broadcaster for the lucrative Indian market, a situation that makes it much more difficult for the SLPL to find a secure financial footing.

"It is their decision and we cannot force them to change their position," Sri Lankan sports minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage told Daily News & Analysis. "We knew that India was not going to change its stand. That was the reason why we did not go to India. We made an attempt to convince them, but the BCCI told us that it cannot reverse its stand. They seem to have some apprehensions over the tournament."

The minister also told the Times of India that Lalit Modi was the reason the BCCI did not want to be part of the tournament. "The Indian board told us they couldn't send their players for SLPL because they felt Modi is involved in this event. The BCCI also said that Modi is the third party and is working behind the scenes."

The BCCI's stand is contrary to that of the Australian, South African, New Zealand and Pakistan boards, which have all extended their support to the tournament. Tim May, the chief executive of Federation of International Cricketers' Associations (FICA), has also backed the event. In a statement on FICA's website released today, May said that the association had negotiated the terms and conditions SLPL player contracts with Somerset.

"FICA approved the final form of the player contract in January 2011," the statement read. "FICA's approval of the player contracts was communicated to all player associations in January. I am very surprised to see reports from the Indian media, that BCCI do not believe that players should sign the player contracts - that is certainly not the opinion of FICA or our legal advisors, and it is our charter to protect all players and to ensure that player contracts for events around the world are in acceptable form to protect player interests."

May also said he had a letter from SLC confirming that the event is an official SLC tournament and is fully sanctioned by the ICC. Among the international players expected to take part are Daniel Vettori, Kevin O'Brien, Shahid Afridi, Kieron Pollard and David Warner. The winner of the tournament is still expected to play in the Champions League Twenty20 tournament in September.

SLC has consistently denied that the SPL is a private-party organised tournament, saying that it is owned and approved by SLC - and so, automatically, by the ICC - and that the Singapore-based Somerset Ventures only owns the commercial rights to the tournament. It has also denied that Modi has anything to do with the event.

Sri Lanka Cricket will push ahead with its inaugural premier league with Australian and Pakistani players, despite a no-show by Indian stars, the island's sports minister said Sunday.

"We will lose a bit of money because Indian players are not coming but the tournament will be played as planned," Mahindananda Aluthgamage told AFP after failed talks to bring the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) on board.
Fast bowlers Praveen Kumar and Munaf Patel were among 12 Indian players who were blocked by the BCCI from playing in the T20 Sri Lankan Premier League (SLPL) from July 19 to August 4.
The minister said the Indian board's reluctance stemmed from media reports that the event was being organised by a Singapore-based company with alleged links to Lalit Modi, the sacked former boss of the Indian Premier League.
"Mr Modi is not involved in our tournament. But we have to accept India's decision. We remain friends with India," Aluthgamage said.
The London-based Modi faces criminal charges, including false accounting, and accusations by the BCCI that more than 106 million dollars were misappropriated during his three-year tenure as IPL chairman.
The Singapore-based Somerset Entertainment Ventures, who won the marketing rights for five years, has already paid an advance of 300,000 dollars to Sri Lanka Cricket, the local Sunday Times newspaper reported.
It said India's reluctance had led to broadcaster ESPN withdrawing support for the tournament, which will feature seven teams and will include a mix of local and international players.
The newspaper said top Sri Lanka Cricket officials met Somerset chairman Sandeep M Bhammer and chief executive Kunal Bhargava on Friday for talks, but details of the discussion remained unclear.

zainab

June 27, 2011, 06:33 AM

The BCCI is a powerful board and SLCB should have never messed with them during the IPL. This is tit for tat.

nakedzero

June 29, 2011, 12:56 PM

The Sri Lanka sports minister has written to his Indian counterpart asking him to intervene in the dispute over releasing Indian players for the Sri Lanka Premier League (SLPL), according to Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) chairman Somachandra de Silva. Officials from the two countries' cricket boards met in Hong Kong, on the sidelines of the ICC conference, on Tuesday to discuss the issue again but were unable to make any progress.

"We had a discussion with the BCCI asking them to release the players," de Silva told ESPNcricinfo. "Earlier they had sent a letter signed by Mr Srinivasan, the secretary of the BCCI, saying they are going to release the players for our tournament. So now that they have changed their minds and for that we are very sad and disappointed. Even our sports minister has written to their [India's] sports minister to try and intervene and solve this issue."

de Silva said the BCCI were adamant that they could not release the players because of the involvement of Somerset Entertainment Ventures (SEV), a private company which won the marketing rights for the SLPL, but that explanation was confusing because IMG, a private company, is involved in the IPL.

"What they are saying is there is another party involved. There is no logic. What about the IPL tournament? There is another party involved - IMG. What is IMG doing with IPL?"

de Silva said he was mystified by the BCCI's stand because the two boards had a good relationship, and SLC were only asking for second-string Indian players while Sri Lanka had sent their national team to England without some of their top players because of the IPL.

"Even our captain didn't go on tour with the team. The captain went after that. So I sincerely hope the Indian cricket board will think about it again and release these players. This is not a long tournament. It is only 16 days. Not like the IPL, which is 51 days. I can't see the reason." Irfan Pathan, Munaf Patel, R Ashwin and Praveen Kumar are among the dozen Indian players reportedly signed up by the SLPL.

de Silva added that the standoff has not affected the relationship between the two countries but he was disappointed by the situation. "As the chairman of Sri Lanka Cricket, I am sad about the whole situation. Because our relationship is so good and so I don't know why they have refused their second-string players.

"I sincerely hope that Shashank [Manohar] will go back and speak to their committee and reverse the decision."

The Sri Lankan sports minister had said last week that the BCCI had informed him that it didn't want Indian players in the tournament because the former IPL commissioner Lalit Modi was involved with it. Modi has denied having any links with the SLPL, something which SEV reiterated through a statement on Tuesday.

"Contrary to recent news/media reports, SEV would like to point out emphatically that Mr. Lalit Modi has no stake or involvement whatsoever in SEV, either directly or indirectly, and has nothing to do with the SLPL or any tournaments of SLC with which SEV is involved on any level," the statement read. "Mr. Lalit Modi is neither a partner nor a shareholder and is not associated with SEV, or its founders or shareholders, in any capacity, either now or in the past."

Sri Lanka Cricket's new interim committee will meet with Somerset Entertainment Ventures on Friday to discuss the future of the Sri Lanka Premier League (SLPL). The previous committee, which created the tournament, was dissolved last week by Sri Lanka's sports ministry and a new panel was appointed in its place. ESPNcricinfo understands that the new committee is still getting up to speed on the tournament and will decide how to go ahead with it once they have met Somerset.

"We have not yet met the SLPL organisers," Sidath Wettimuny, one of the members of the new committee, told ESPNcricinfo. "The meeting is scheduled on Friday." Wettimuny also denied rumours that the tournament had been postponed or that it would go ahead with only Sri Lankan players.

The change in administration so close to the launch of the tournament is the latest setback for the SLPL, which has already been hit by the BCCI's refusal to allow Indian players to take part. The BCCI had withheld its permission on the grounds that Somerset, which owns the commercial rights, would be handling the contracts for international players and that could lead to complications should disputes arise over payments. In order to assuage the Indian board, SLC was willing to back the Indian players' contracts so that their financial interests were protected, but that was not enough to satisfy the BCCI. The Indian board has also claimed that former IPL chairman Lalit Modi had a hand in the event, but SLC and Somerset have repeatedly denied the allegation, as has Modi.

The BCCI's decision means the tournament does not have a broadcaster for the lucrative Indian market, a situation that makes it much more difficult for the SLPL to find a secure financial footing, something that the new committee will have to consider.

One potential incentive for holding the tournament as scheduled is the Champions League T20 in September. The winner of the SLPL receives a spot in that tournament and since Sri Lanka host Australia in August and September, July is the only available window before the CLT20. However, given that the SLPL's first game is set for July 19th, SLC would have only 11 days after Friday's meeting to organise the event, including putting in place security for the players and the anti-corruption measures required by the ICC.

The Sri Lanka Premier League (SLPL) has been postponed to August 2012 after facing a series of problems, including the unexpected withdrawal of Indian players from the tournament. In its place Sri Lanka Cricket, the league's owners, will conduct the regular inter-provincial Twenty20 tournament featuring five domestic sides without involving foreign players.

An official announcement is awaited, though South Africa's Herschelle Gibbs, one of the overseas players linked with the tournament, told this website that he'd been informed of the one-year deferral.

ESPNcricinfo understands that the decision to postpone the league - which was scheduled to start on July 19 - was taken on Thursday at a meeting between the SLC's new committee and Somerset Entertainment Ventures, the league's organisers. Given the BCCI's decision not to let Indian players participate and the time crunch, both parties felt it prudent to delay the launch. A four-week window in August 2012 was identified as the best time for the tournament; meanwhile the SLC will continue to lobby the BCCI for Indian participation.

The BCCI had withheld its permission on the grounds that Somerset, which owned the commercial rights, would be handling the contracts for international players and that could lead to complications should disputes arise over payments. In order to assuage the Indian board, SLC was willing to back the Indian players' contracts so that their financial interests were protected, but that was not enough to satisfy the BCCI. There have been suggestions that former IPL chairman Lalit Modi had a hand in the event, but SLC and Somerset have repeatedly denied the allegation, as has Modi.

The BCCI's decision meant the tournament did not have a broadcaster for the lucrative Indian market, a situation that made it much more difficult for the SLPL to find a secure financial footing. Adding to the sense of confusion was last week's dissolution of the SLC committee that had created the tournament, and its replacement by a new panel.

The Indian board's stand - which marked a U-turn of sorts after an initial green signal - was contrary to that of the boards of Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and Pakistan, all of whom extended their support to the tournament. Tim May, the chief executive of Federation of International Cricketers' Associations (FICA), had also backed the event.

Sri Lanka Cricket has admitted that India's decision to withdraw its players from the Sri Lanka Premier League effectively pulled the plug on the tournament.

"Honestly, we are finding it difficult to have the Premier League without India's support," SLC spokesman Brian Thomas told cricket365.com. "We can't get into more debt."

Thomas' confirmation came after two South African players linked to the tournament - Herschelle Gibbs and Davy Jacobs - told ESPNcricinfo that they had been informed of the one-year deferral. On Friday, the agent for Lonwabo Tsotosbe said he'd received similar information from Somerset Entertainment Ventures, the league's organisers.

India's boycott deprived the tournament of a broadcaster for the lucrative Indian market, making it unviable at a time when SLC is going through financial instability. Adding to the sense of confusion was last week's dissolution of the SLC committee that had created the tournament, and its replacement by a new panel.

Consequently, the tournament's inaugural edition has been pushed to August 2012, following a meeting between the new committee and Somerset. In its place, SLC will conduct the regular inter-provincial Twenty20 tournament featuring five domestic sides without involving foreign players, with the winner becoming eligible for the Champions League in September.

Meanwhile the SLC will continue to lobby for Indian participation in next year's event. Thomas said the country's cricket authorities were hopeful of reaching an agreement with India on the issue.

The SLPL ran into trouble when BCCI withheld its permission on the grounds that Somerset, which owned the commercial rights, would be handling the contracts for international players and that could lead to complications should disputes arise over payments. The SLC was willing to back the Indian players' contracts so that their financial interests were protected, but that was not enough to satisfy the BCCI. There have been suggestions that former IPL chairman Lalit Modi had a hand in the event, but SLC and Somerset repeatedly denied the allegation, as did Modi.

The Indian board's stand - which marked a U-turn of sorts after an initial green signal - was contrary to that of the boards of Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and Pakistan, all of whom extended their support to the tournament. Tim May, the chief executive of Federation of International Cricketers' Associations (FICA), had also backed the event.

Sri Lanka's top stars will skip most of the matches in the country's inaugural premier league Twenty20, dealing another blow to the struggling event, an official said Tuesday.

Skipper Tilakaratne Dilshan, former captains Kumar Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardene, all-rounder Angelo Mathews and slinger Lasith Malinga are among local players expected to miss most of the 10-day tournament starting Thursday.

"They [the players] will likely choose which matches they want to play, because they are being rested for the upcoming Australian tour," Sri Lanka Cricket media manager Brian Thomas told AFP.

The Australian team arrives in Colombo on July 30 to play three Tests, five one-days and two Twenty20 games during their tour that ends on September 20.

Sri Lanka's cricket authorities were forced to shorten the T20 league after the Indian cricket board prevented its players from taking part.

In any business if you are too slow to react you lose out on the market. T-20 cricket is not different as it is also a lucrative business of which India has a total monopoly.
Just like all other companies play catch up with Apple products... the other boards are trying feebly to do the same with the T-20 league. If you don't have the private sector power, home crowd enthusiasm and brand image of superstar players then there is no point dreaming about having the success of IPL.
IPL in itself will be in trouble with the saturation of T-20 and over crowded schedules. Indian public is cricket hungry but even they have a limit to how much cricket they can stomach. Does anybody even remember who played the semi finals in the IPL?

nakedzero

July 20, 2011, 02:13 AM

Indian public is cricket hungry but even they have a limit to how much cricket they can stomach. Does anybody even remember who played the semi finals in the IPL?

:notworthy: Completely agree :notworthy:

BANFAN

July 26, 2011, 03:29 AM

SLPL dies before it is born.

BCCI is too selfish and non cooperative.

hassan .r

July 26, 2011, 10:38 PM

SLPL dies before it is born.

BCCI is too selfish and non cooperative.

well BCCI was always selfish and they will remain like that so we should leave them alone there are other good things to talk about ......... we should not spoil our mood by talking about BCCI ...............:):):):):):)

M.H.Rubel

August 8, 2012, 08:26 AM

Bangladeshi t V Channel Gtv will telecast S L P L

playmaker

August 8, 2012, 09:04 AM

Bangladeshi t V Channel Gtv will telecast S L P L

If GTV is the only channel in BD that broadcasts it then seems like a good move. But i wont be suprised if its not profitable since GTV isnt a well known channel and furthermore BDeshis arent really interested. Had shakib and few others had been included their wouldve been more viewership

AsifTheManRahman

August 8, 2012, 10:03 AM

Clearly not easy arranging a tournament of the IPL's stature. Lalit Modi is a pioneer, an artist, an administrative genius.